Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 211

Summary: - Issuance of Ministerial Decision 2211/2012 amending certain provisions of Decision 3632/2004 concerning additional allowances and remuneration for military personnel relating to engineers, their assistants, pharmacists, and military nurses. Its provision that it takes effect from 1/7/2012 without retroactive effect. The established fact that the appellant was referred to retirement on 30/1/2012, before the latter decision was issued. Its consequence: this decision does not apply to him. He is not subject to the provisions of Civil Service Council Decision No. 8/2010, in his capacity as a member of the military. The challenged judgment’s dismissal of his action for annulment of the negative administrative decision insofar as Decision 2211/2012 did not provide for an increase in the specialization allowance for engineers from 1/4/2010, on a par with engineers employed by government entities. Correct. Rule: The first-instance judgment, upheld and supplemented by the challenged judgment, based its dismissal of the action on the fact that Ministerial Decision No. 2211 of 2012 amending certain provisions of Ministerial Decision No. 3632 of 2004 concerning additional allowances and remuneration for military personnel relating to engineers, their assistants, pharmacists, and military nurses provided that it would take effect from 1/7/2012 without retroactive effect. Decision No. 52 of 2012 had been issued in respect of the appellant, referring him to retirement effective 30/1/2012, before the decision at issue was issued, and therefore it does not apply to him, in addition to Civil Service Council Decision No. 8 of 2010 not applying to him in his capacity as a member of the military. The challenged judgment added that the respondent, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee for Additional Allowances and Remuneration for Military Personnel, promptly addressed the Ministry of Finance and requested that it provide the financial appropriations necessary to implement the latter decision for the military engineers employed by him, until he obtained its approval on 20/6/2012. Upon submission of this to the Minister of Defence, he issued Decision No. 2211 of 2012 on 1/7/2012. Consequently, the respondent authority spared no effort to achieve equality between those engineers and their counterparts at government entities, thereby absolving its decision of the defect of abuse or misuse of power. Since the conclusion reached by the judgment is sound, has its established basis in the case papers, and does not contravene the law, the objection to it on the ground of appeal is unfounded.